Put the surface search radar that existed on many aircraft on those aircraft, allow an air search by those aircraft at night and allow those aircraft to make attacks on ships without benefit of a submarine sighting (which was something that wasn't necessary and furthermore almost never preceded a nighttime air attack on shipping).

There's a problem with floatplanes not being able to fly troops in or out of a base with extensive airfield damage ( 100 or so ). In my game vs Jagdfluger I am trying to fly cadres out of Palembang but because the airfield is 100% damaged I cannot do so. We're solving it with a house rule but this is obviously a bug. Saves available.

add "get rooky pilot" button into squardon screen and "only rooky pilot replacemets" into both aquardon and aquardon list screen - in order japanese player not have to use valuable experienced carrier trained fighter pilots as replacement for patrol and FP sqaurdons.

add "get rooky pilot" button into squardon screen and "only rooky pilot replacemets" into both aquardon and aquardon list screen - in order japanese player not have to use valuable experienced carrier trained fighter pilots as replacement for patrol and FP sqaurdons.

Yeah! I want that, too!

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

Even though I agree with your thoughts Halsey, the manual really says:

Airfield size has many effects. It is easier to damage and destroy aircraft on the ground at smaller airfields (less dispersion). It is also more likely that planes will suffer operational losses when landing at smaller airfields.

So the manual really says that they will have increased ops losses ( I don't think thereis enough of an increase in losses ), not that they can't fly. I think that a B-17 flying from a level 2 airfield should have about a 70-80% chance of being an ops loss, with about a 60-70% chance of aircrew death. Maybe that would slow things down a bit.

Even though I agree with your thoughts Halsey, the manual really says:

Airfield size has many effects. It is easier to damage and destroy aircraft on the ground at smaller airfields (less dispersion). It is also more likely that planes will suffer operational losses when landing at smaller airfields.

So the manual really says that they will have increased ops losses ( I don't think thereis enough of an increase in losses ), not that they can't fly. I think that a B-17 flying from a level 2 airfield should have about a 70-80% chance of being an ops loss, with about a 60-70% chance of aircrew death. Maybe that would slow things down a bit.

I know. The whole point of this though is this.

If you can base 4E bombers from -4 airfields, then why bother using 2E bombers.

While I mostly play the Allies, my response is this. Being able to fly attack missions from -4 airfields really messes up the play balance of the game.

I would gladly have a ship raising/capturing feature, as at least japanese were using dozens of captured units. IMHO, it could work like it: 1) Some ship has been sunk in port or coastal hex (ran aground...). 2) In port, it would be visible in the "salvage" list. In coastal hex, it needs an "Salvage" task force containing an AR type ship to find it. 3) In salvage list, you can select a ship to raise. It needs either a shipyard or a Salvage task force to be there. Assigning multiple ARs or a larger repair yard helps to speed up. 4) In about a month, the raised ship would appear, with 99% system damage, and 50% water. You better repair it. Only then, you can raise another ship with this TF/Shipyard 5) You can raise any own ship, and any small enemy ship (DD and less, AK/AP/TK/AO/Amphibious assault and less). 6) When capturing enemy base, some vessels might scuttle, some might be captured as is. 7) When capturing enemy vessel (in port or by raising it), Transports/Tankers/Amphibious keep their class, all combatants become a PC-class vessel, keeping the specs of the original ship, but all the weapons replaced by the japanese pattern (75mm+ guns with a 75mm AA, all small AA with 25 mm guns, DCs with japanese DCs, torps replaced by the additional DCs or AAs...). Maybe MSWs can keep their class. This way you can get all those japanese-used captured vessels, like ex USS Stewart, ex HMS Thracian, 4 Bangors, all those ex-dutch PCs...

And I forgot yet another thing - some transports (unescorted) might surrender or scuttle if attacked by a surface TF...

As with aircraft, when you capture a base, aircraft are currently destroyed. In reality - some were destroyed, some were captured.. And used for training, special or even regular duties.. Why not roll a percentage of destroyed to captured, and add captured to the pool? Maybe letting some units to upgrade to them.....

Captured aircraft were rarely used in combat except for Finalnd. When they were, they were often pushed off onto minor allies. Germany used some captured US aircraft to snoop on the bomber formations and for some diversionary tactics, but they did not use them for the same missions as German built planes.

The practice was very rare in the Pacific. The aircraft on each side were built to very different doctrines. The Allies found Japanese aircraft too flimsy and unprotected for combat and the Japanese thought Allied aircraft too heavy and sluggish. Japanese doctrine began to change by the end of 1944, but the only Allied aircraft they were capturing then were ones brought down over their territory.

Allied aircraft captured early in the war were mostly used for evaluation, sometimes training, and sometimes as unit hack aircraft. I did a bit of research. It looks like one Japanese unit fielded about 10 P-40Es at Rangoon in 1943, but it was only for a short time and that was the only combat unit to be equipped with Allied aircraft. Here is a webpage on J-Aircraft about captured aircraft: http://www.j-aircraft.com/captured/

I think captured aircraft would be a bit of chrome we could do without, would be hard to implement, and there are a lot of other features I would put ahead of it on my wish list.

Captured aircraft were rarely used in combat except for Finalnd. When they were, they were often pushed off onto minor allies. Germany used some captured US aircraft to snoop on the bomber formations and for some diversionary tactics, but they did not use them for the same missions as German built planes.

The practice was very rare in the Pacific. The aircraft on each side were built to very different doctrines. The Allies found Japanese aircraft too flimsy and unprotected for combat and the Japanese thought Allied aircraft too heavy and sluggish. Japanese doctrine began to change by the end of 1944, but the only Allied aircraft they were capturing then were ones brought down over their territory.

Allied aircraft captured early in the war were mostly used for evaluation, sometimes training, and sometimes as unit hack aircraft. I did a bit of research. It looks like one Japanese unit fielded about 10 P-40Es at Rangoon in 1943, but it was only for a short time and that was the only combat unit to be equipped with Allied aircraft. Here is a webpage on J-Aircraft about captured aircraft: http://www.j-aircraft.com/captured/

I think captured aircraft would be a bit of chrome we could do without, would be hard to implement, and there are a lot of other features I would put ahead of it on my wish list.

Hey, it might solve the Allied A/C replacement problem - millions of Tony's on both sides!

I'm too lazy to read all the 27 pages, so I would like to ask it it's possible to make a list on the first side with the best ideas and suggestions with improvements. So maybe I'm now writing something that has been mentioned already.

The first thing are the british PP, they should be seperated from the american. If the player refuses to send back ships, his reinforcements should come later or better, not at all. Without more ships in the Mediterranean Sea, the British would have more problems with Rommel and would need the troops in Africa.

Planes on CAP should reacting on enemies flying over or near their basehex and not only cover their base. If the allied player bombs japanese cities with his bombers from Chungking, every base in reach needs at least one fighter squadron, and that's impossible to cover. Japanese planes from Ichang and Honan should intercept allied bombers on their way to the east. Fighters from Hanoi should intercept bombers flying to Haiphong, and so on.

Stop rebuilding full units from fragements. Sure it's possible to rebuild some of them, but not whole armies like all troops lost at Singapur and almost all armoured British troops lost in Burma and so on.

I'm too lazy to read all the 27 pages, so I would like to ask it it's possible to make a list on the first side with the best ideas and suggestions with improvements. So maybe I'm now writing something that has been mentioned already.

The first thing are the british PP, they should be seperated from the american. If the player refuses to send back ships, his reinforcements should come later or better, not at all. Without more ships in the Mediterranean Sea, the British would have more problems with Rommel and would need the troops in Africa.

Planes on CAP should reacting on enemies flying over or near their basehex and not only cover their base. If the allied player bombs japanese cities with his bombers from Chungking, every base in reach needs at least one fighter squadron, and that's impossible to cover. Japanese planes from Ichang and Honan should intercept allied bombers on their way to the east. Fighters from Hanoi should intercept bombers flying to Haiphong, and so on.

Stop rebuilding full units from fragements. Sure it's possible to rebuild some of them, but not whole armies like all troops lost at Singapur and almost all armoured British troops lost in Burma and so on.

i suggest you make some house rules - these suggestions are likely to prove very controversial and not acceptable to many players.

EDIT - your suggestion #2 is already in effect... however, fighter interceptions at a nearby base are much less effective, and remember each hex is something like 3600 square miles.

They should be very controversial, I'm interested what others are thinking about this, and why. My suggestion #2 is in by CHS-Pbem not in effect because my fighters are only intercepting enemy planes if they attack a base 1 or 2 hexes away, and that only sometimes. 150 fighters sitting in Hanoi doing nothing while Haiphong is bombed by planes from Mandalay don't convince me suggestion #2 is in effect. If the enemy is attacking a base on his maximum range and his planes MUST fly over my base or over a adjacent hex, why should they not be intercepted? Even TF react sometimes to other TF. I know that every hex has 3600 square miles but this cannot stop enemy bombers to destroy resource centers with one strike.

They should be very controversial, I'm interested what others are thinking about this, and why. My suggestion #2 is in by CHS-Pbem not in effect because my fighters are only intercepting enemy planes if they attack a base 1 or 2 hexes away, and that only sometimes. 150 fighters sitting in Hanoi doing nothing while Haiphong is bombed by planes from Mandalay don't convince me suggestion #2 is in effect. If the enemy is attacking a base on his maximum range and his planes MUST fly over my base or over a adjacent hex, why should they not be intercepted? Even TF react sometimes to other TF. I know that every hex has 3600 square miles but this cannot stop enemy bombers to destroy resource centers with one strike.

As far as the "no rebuild" rule - this has been hashed out probably 3 dozen times already in various heated threads.

As far as "must fly over your base" - well, it would be a difficult programming problem, i think... and relatively few instances where it could be put into effect. As it is, programming even escorts is problematic (i.e. - escorts for transports).

In addition, the game does not allow variable flight profiles, so you a player can't do what strike planners would do - fly over contested territory at high altitude, then drop down to lower altitude to attack. Unless one had a radar net in the area overflown at high altitude, the chances of successful interception would be low at any rate.

And no, a single radar set doesn't mean a net. Single radar sets gave relatively small warning times (if any at all, if accounts from Shore's Bloody Shambles can be taken as examples). You might get additional warning from spotters (as in the Guadalcanal campaign) - but this was an uncommon situation. At any rate, i don't believe the game has programming for spotters for aircraft (although i could be wrong).

I'm not sure if we are writing about the same thing. Fighters on cap intercept every enemy plane attacking the base, so it should not be impossible to do the same to planes just flying by. There are no variable flight profiles needed or a radar net for detection. Germany had radar nets till the allied disturbed them, but this didn't have any influence on german planes shadowing the raid and transmitting the position. I know that 3600 square miles are a big area but I don't think a bombing raid from one side of China to the other will never be caught because there are so many hexes and every has 3600 square miles.

It's not the point if the game has the programming or not, I'm writing this with the hope WITP II will have it.

As far as the "no rebuild" rule - this has been hashed out probably 3 dozen times already in various heated threads and I hope it will be the same in much more threads.

I'm not sure if we are writing about the same thing. Fighters on cap intercept every enemy plane attacking the base, so it should not be impossible to do the same to planes just flying by.

It should not be possible for the CAP to do this - one of the major gripes about WITP by more than a few folk. To extend this silliness to adjacent hexes wouldn't make sense.

Do you have actual examples where there were large-scale interceptions (which you seem to be advocating) taking place without radar nets in the WITP theaters?? i don't remember ever hearing of anything. There were occasional invidual encounters - and those are in the game.

quote:

There are no variable flight profiles needed or a radar net for detection. Germany had radar nets till the allied disturbed them, but this didn't have any influence on german planes shadowing the raid and transmitting the position. I know that 3600 square miles are a big area but I don't think a bombing raid from one side of China to the other will never be caught because there are so many hexes and every has 3600 square miles.

It's not the point if the game has the programming or not, I'm writing this with the hope WITP II will have it.

Well - since it wasn't historical (as far as i can determine) - i wouldn't count on it being incorporated in the game.

Germany/France are two different things - there was a vast difference in scale and airfield densities between the two theaters. Many (and at some times during the war - most) Japanese planes lacked radios. Again - how many examples of large scale intercepts away from bases were there in China during the war??

quote:

As far as the "no rebuild" rule - this has been hashed out probably 3 dozen times already in various heated threads and I hope it will be the same in much more threads.

Well, you are free to read through them. i haven't heard anything here that is new. If there was a rule to allow players to form new units at will (as commanders could and did do in the course of actual events) that would be fine - just return evac'd units to a pool if the parent is destroyed, and allow the player to form new units. But, since we can't do that in the game, the best alternative is to try to preserve the old LCUs.

Some things are not possible because it's not historic, other thing's because the game wouldn't allow it.

When the CAP is in the air it should attack all that enter the hex, that's simple and not silly. No pilot would abort an attack just because the enemy is not attacking and just flying by. Maybe the Italian would. It's possible that the Japanese never had enough planes in China and so there never was a large scale interception, but this is no reason to say it was impossible to happen and so it's not historical.

quote:

Germany/France are two different things - there was a vast difference in scale and airfield densities between the two theaters

The airfield and radar net densities over the Adriatic Sea were very low I guess,one of the reason why german planes followed the raiders and transmitted the positions. That's not so complicated that a Dinah couldn't do that if needed. Maybe it really happend, I don't know.

quote:

Well, you are free to read through them. i haven't heard anything here that is new. If there was a rule to allow players to form new units at will (as commanders could and did do in the course of actual events) that would be fine - just return evac'd units to a pool if the parent is destroyed, and allow the player to form new units. But, since we can't do that in the game, the best alternative is to try to preserve the old LCUs.

I wrote that I didn't read all of them so sorry if there is nothing new. The possibility to refit all destroyed units outbalances the game for me and I wish that this should be fixed asap.

Some things are not possible because it's not historic, other thing's because the game wouldn't allow it.

When the CAP is in the air it should attack all that enter the hex, that's simple and not silly. No pilot would abort an attack just because the enemy is not attacking and just flying by. Maybe the Italian would. It's possible that the Japanese never had enough planes in China and so there never was a large scale interception, but this is no reason to say it was impossible to happen and so it's not historical.

Even over a limited space like a TF, all CAP never engaged in battles even directed with multiple radar sets over US fleets, and we are talking an area of a few hundred square miles, not a few thousand square miles.

CAP couldn't get into position, and most times never saw the enemy let alone get into attack position. The idea that all CAP should attack leads to the "UberCAP" that players complain bitterly about - when they are on the receiving end. Personally, i will no longer play standard WITP because of this - and most people who have played mods won't go back to standard.

quote:

quote:

Germany/France are two different things - there was a vast difference in scale and airfield densities between the two theaters

The airfield and radar net densities over the Adriatic Sea were very low I guess,one of the reason why german planes followed the raiders and transmitted the positions. That's not so complicated that a Dinah couldn't do that if needed. Maybe it really happend, I don't know.

From what i've read - it didn't. Dinahs wern't employed as anti-air defence units - they were recon and search units deployed as such and were busy doing these duties. If you can come up with examples of mass interceptions directed by Dinahs or any other planes, i would be very interested to see them.

quote:

quote:

Well, you are free to read through them. i haven't heard anything here that is new. If there was a rule to allow players to form new units at will (as commanders could and did do in the course of actual events) that would be fine - just return evac'd units to a pool if the parent is destroyed, and allow the player to form new units. But, since we can't do that in the game, the best alternative is to try to preserve the old LCUs.

quote:

I wrote that I didn't read all of them so sorry if there is nothing new. The possibility to refit all destroyed units outbalances the game for me and I wish that this should be fixed asap.

quote:

and allow the player to form new units

You are playing with the historical units so all should be fine.

No, because that assumes that everything plays out exactly the same as what happened in the war. If there are different loses, or different lack of losses it isn't logical to assume the LCUs would have been the same. Allowances ARE made for this as far as air units and ships (at least for Japan).

In addition, the land units are not necessarily historical. For instance - land based air had attached air support units (at least at the beginning of the war) which moved around with the air units. This doesn't happen in the game. In addition, numerous small (and for that matter large) units are not in the game at all.

The CAP should attack all planes crossing the hex, that's the thing, It must not be the whole CAP but a part is free to intercept. Why you think that would lead to uberCAP, I don't know. There have always been battles between hostile patrols even without radar-guidance. If you believe it's realistic that hundred planes are doing nothing while enemy bombers flying over their base every day, I don't do it.

quote:

If you can come up with examples of mass interceptions directed by Dinahs or any other planes, i would be very interested to see

I wrote that I don't know if this happend but that's not the point. Just because an interception is not known it doesn't mean that this is impossible and unrealistic.

quote:

No, because that assumes that everything plays out exactly the same as what happens in the war

That's my point. No interceptions because is not known if this happend but we won't assume everything plays exactly like it happend in the war.

You are writing about air support units and smaller units, I'm writing about whole divions and armoured brigades. While I'm preparing Burma against the allies, my oppenent tells me that the partly evacuated units from Singapur have been almost rebuild to 80%. While my divions suffered serious casualties destroying his armour in Burma, he is able to rebuild almost all lost units which normally should be gone with the help of some survivors and so I will be facing a much greater force than it should be. It's not the point if the allies have the possibilites to rebuild or not, the units have been lost and not all have been replaced. But I'm sure the same thing is wrote in the other posts and we don't have to talk about it. As long the game has no option to form new units, the rebuilding of units with the help of one submarine-load survivors should be stopped.

The CAP should attack all planes crossing the hex, that's the thing, It must not be the whole CAP but a part is free to intercept. Why you think that would lead to uberCAP, I don't know. There have always been battles between hostile patrols even without radar-guidance. If you believe it's realistic that hundred planes are doing nothing while enemy bombers flying over their base every day, I don't do it.

quote:

If you can come up with examples of mass interceptions directed by Dinahs or any other planes, i would be very interested to see

I wrote that I don't know if this happend but that's not the point. Just because an interception is not known it doesn't mean that this is impossible and unrealistic.

quote:

No, because that assumes that everything plays out exactly the same as what happens in the war

That's my point. No interceptions because is not known if this happend but we won't assume everything plays exactly like it happend in the war.

You are writing about air support units and smaller units, I'm writing about whole divions and armoured brigades. While I'm preparing Burma against the allies, my oppenent tells me that the partly evacuated units from Singapur have been almost rebuild to 80%. While my divions suffered serious casualties destroying his armour in Burma, he is able to rebuild almost all lost units which normally should be gone with the help of some survivors and so I will be facing a much greater force than it should be. It's not the point if the allies have the possibilites to rebuild or not, the units have been lost and not all have been replaced. But I'm sure the same thing is wrote in the other posts and we don't have to talk about it. As long the game has no option to form new units, the rebuilding of units with the help of one submarine-load survivors should be stopped.

Well - this is your opinion based on your beliefs, but you are unable to back up any of your statements with facts ("everyone passing through hex should be attacked - won't lead to UberCAP"). In fact that is what happens when CAP interacts normally - and this is what you want to happen in all cases.

i don't think people are going to take your wishes seriously unless you can back up your claims. "

quote:

Just because an interception is not known it doesn't mean that this is impossible and unrealistic.

It does if you want to ROUTINELY happens - which is what you are asking for. i can give isolated examples of (for instance) a single sniper pinning down an entire brigade for weeks but to advocate this happening as a routine course of events is not "realistic".

If you can't show something happens routinely in actual events, i don't think a request for it tbe put into the game is going to be seriously considered.

As for the "no rebuild because Japan is suffering" - i have no idea about if what you say ("80% rebuilt") about your opponent's units really means. British units (which would be the ones evacuated from Singapore) have a low combat rebuild rate based on the replacement rate of their units.

Either the facts are not accurate ("PsyOps" on by your opponent or something), or he probably got a lot more of his units out than you thought, or it has been a long time between when the units were "destroyed" and when they got the 80% replacement.

i haven't played stock for some time, but i don't recall many (or any) armored units in Malaya (although i suppose they could have been brought in). Most of the units in Malaya are Indian, with some Malayan, British and and Australian units thrown in. Numerous Indian Brigades are not in the game that were in the theater in real life.

Also, 80% replacement can mean a lot of things. i have had armored units at "80%" in my game with almost no combat strength. It could mean they have 80% of the total number of units in their TO&E. These could be support units (which have a relatively high replacement rate), and/or the various squads could be disabled. You could say they are "80% replaced" by the number on the screen, but they might have only about 10% of their Assault Value.

If you don't like a particular instance what is happening in your game - next time negotiate house rules that you can live with. This is routinely done by players and makes for a more interesting and fun game.

If the enemy attacks the base and the fighters react, this is CAP. If the bombers flying just through the hex and the fighters react, this would be uberCAP. If one TF react to an other, this is uberSURFACECOMBAT?

So many things in the game are influenced by dice rolls, so the CAP could react or not, or just 10% or more... But to say it's impossible, I don't know. I'm not sure if you have understood what I'm writing about all the time.

If you really believe air combat just took part when radar was involved, than I missed something. When I was reading old fighter reports from the eastern front, most of the battles occured because one group found an other and the dogfight began. And you didn't give me any reason why this should not happened in China. Why this should not be possible in WITP, I don't know and you didn't convinced me that this is impossible.

I haven't played stock for a long time, so I cannot tell you anything about the troops you are talking about. Maybe you didn't understand that I'm against the possibility of rebuilding troops if someone picks up just a small squad of a unit with a sub or something. If he can save at least 20-25% it's allright, everything else is crap. When the allied player isn't able to win with the units he has, and so he has to trick the game to get more units, maybe he should better try an other game like PacMan.

All the time I believed this thread here is for enchancements and critics so less house rules would be nessessary in the future, till you told me I should try houserules. Maybe you have a house rule as advice how it would be possible to stop enemy bombers flying over a base on their way to somewhere else.

If the enemy attacks the base and the fighters react, this is CAP. If the bombers flying just through the hex and the fighters react, this would be uberCAP. If one TF react to an other, this is uberSURFACECOMBAT?

No - UberCAP is what exists in the game now - every aircraft attacking a base gets attacked by every fighter defending the base with the net result that if large numbers of fighters are defending something - no one can get through.

What you seem to be advocating is extending into anyone passing through... which would seem to be extending the malfunction of the game engine to a new level... maybe you could call it SuperUberCAP or something. However, from your remarks below, you seem to be advocating only a percentage of CAP interecept. From what i have read (and i think my reading is fairly extensive) - only a certain percentage of CAP should intercept at the base being defended (maybe 10%).

As for ships attacking ships passing through the hex - doesn't happen in the game (although many think it should).

quote:

So many things in the game are influenced by dice rolls, so the CAP could react or not, or just 10% or more... But to say it's impossible, I don't know. I'm not sure if you have understood what I'm writing about all the time.

From what i understand, the way the game engine handles it is that all defense takes place at the target. You can get intercepts of planes by aircraft from bases not at the target and not asigned to LRCAP - if you like, think of them as being intercepted as they passed through the CAPed hex (the messages don't say where the combat takes place) - and it is nothing like 10%. Of course, in actual events it was nothing like 10%, either.

quote:

If you really believe air combat just took part when radar was involved, than I missed something. When I was reading old fighter reports from the eastern front, most of the battles occured because one group found an other and the dogfight began. And you didn't give me any reason why this should not happened in China. Why this should not be possible in WITP, I don't know and you didn't convinced me that this is impossible.

i did not say that combat only took place when radar was involved - i said efficient intercepts generally only took place when there were (usually multiple) radar sets involved. Two different things entirely.

quote:

I haven't played stock for a long time, so I cannot tell you anything about the troops you are talking about. Maybe you didn't understand that I'm against the possibility of rebuilding troops if someone picks up just a small squad of a unit with a sub or something. If he can save at least 20-25% it's allright, everything else is crap. When the allied player isn't able to win with the units he has, and so he has to trick the game to get more units, maybe he should better try an other game like PacMan.

Let us not cast stones.

quote:

All the time I believed this thread here is for enchancements and critics so less house rules would be nessessary in the future, till you told me I should try houserules. Maybe you have a house rule as advice how it would be possible to stop enemy bombers flying over a base on their way to somewhere else.

Thanks.

Don't think there is a house rule that can effect this - i was thinking of some of your other concerns - however, consider this:

The game simplifies thing enormously... if you compare the ranges of aircraft, they are much lower in the game than in real life. This is because the designers figured that a lot of fuel was used up in operational realities - like making detours around bad things like flak concentrations, etc.

It is unrealistic to penalize players from "flying over an enemy base" when they can not set waypoints, vary altitudes, etc. You assume that aircraft fly over your base, perhaps because of the "red arrow" the combat replay draws in - but that is just an assumption.

The game just simplifies it (enormously) and so the results sort-of simulate what happened in real life. Sort of. Actually, the game engine produces MUCH bloodier results than what really happened. To increase the effects of CAP to passing aircraft would make things worse (imo).

Your suggestion might have merit if a player had full fuel/range, could set waypoints, could set variable altitudes at different times of the flight, a realistic weather model (clouds) etc., and there was a LOT more detail to the map than a 60 mile hex. i suspect flak would be a much more serious consideration to players than an intercept.

Lastly - and i will continue to point this out: you STILL have not produced examples (pleural - one won't do) of this having ever happened in the course of actual events. Until you do, i don't think people will take your proposal seriously. IF you are able to produce actual data, you MIGHT have the designers/programmers consider it in any future enhancements.

A given hex may have a base in it, but it would be very rare that a base would take up anything close to the entire hex. It is possible that Los Angeles today is geographically the largest metro area on Earth. (Urban sprawl has enabled it to eat up a large chunk of Southern California.) According to Wikipedia, the Los Angeles metro area today (which includes Los Angeles county, Orange county, Ventura county, parts of Riverside county, and parts of San Bernardino county) is 4850 square miles. That is a little bigger than one hex, which is 3600 square miles.

During the time period of the game, Los Angeles is far, far smaller, much less than 1000 square miles, less than 1/4 of a hex. And that it a major US city. The island of Singapore is only 253 square miles, 7% of one hex. The majority of that hex is open water.

Fighters on CAP over Singapore are going to be over the city. They aren't going to be cruising around in the Straits unless they are protecting a convoy. Enemy aircraft just passing through the hex where Singapore is are going to avoid passing directly over the island and risk being attacked. Because the game's granularity is a 60 mile hex, it looks like they are passing right over the base, but they could be 30 or even 50 miles away.

Fighters flying CAP might see enemy planes passing 30 miles away, but it is doubtful they would intercept them. First off, the fighters on CAP would probably have orders to not leave their station unless they are engaging enemy planes that pose a risk to the base or other target being protected. Secondly, unless the fighters have one hell of a speed advantage (such as flying Me-262), they won't be able to catch enemy aircraft in a tail chase in any reasonable time.

If they are chasing the enemy and have a 50 mph speed advantage, it would take almost 40 minutes to catch the enemy.

Fighters are tactically offensive weapons, but strategically, they are defensive weapons. Fighters are not much use as pure fighters unless they have something to defend. Historically, when somebody gets air spurpemacy, fighters are assigned attack plane roles to give them something to do such as strafing ground targets or ground support. When the tide turned for the Allies in the Solomons, Corsairs got bomb racks.

Fighters flying in the fighter role are assigned to defend something. They are escorting bombers, flying CAP over a base or convoy, or they are waiting for the call to fly up as interceptors. Fighters defending something may go chasing off after something, but if they are, they are usually disobeying orders.

Fighter sweeps are sometimes flown, but the fighters are usually tasked with shooting up ground targets if enemy fighters don't appear. Unless air defenses are very strong, the defending side usually won't send up fighters to intercept a fighter sweep. When the RAF was conducting fighter sweeps of occupied France, the Germans rarely sent up fighters once they figured out what was going on. The British lost a lot of experienced pilots to flak on those missions and the Germans lost little.

Shattered Sword does document that poor Japanese CAP doctrine and discipline contributed to the loss of their carriers. Their fighters tended to concentrate on the first threat they became aware of and there was little fighter direction. That meant that the fighters were engaged chasing American torpedo planes when the SBDs showed up.

Even with such poor fighter discipline, the Japanese fighters were not wandering too far from their carriers. The arc covered was probably about 100 square miles (2.8% of a hex) maximum. Probably less than that.

With long range radar and sophisticated ground control procedures, the capability of CAP greatly improved. By the late war carrier battles, US ships had radar that could cover more than an entire hex. That enabled people in a ship's CIC to vector fighters to the enemy so they were in the right position at the right time. That's a very different situation than an early war scenario where fighters are defending a base and somebody flies through 30 miles away. In the latter case, by the time the enemy was spotted, it was usually too late to do anything about it unless they were coming at you.

As far as air battles over the Eastern Front. Much of the air action there was concentrated over the front lines, or over bases just behind the front lines. Fighters would be covering the air space over their troops or base and the other side would be trying to get attack planes through to attack the enemy troops. If a pure fighter battle broke out, it would most likely be when to opposing CAPs encountered one another.